I was actually thinking "Kursk" 1943 when hitler was still hoping to look for a decise battle and which by this time Guderian, one of the more attacking generals, was already preaching the doctrine of using tanks in a defensive manner.(rapid response defense / fluid defence or something like that was his new tank doctrine)
When the Kursk battle was lost and perhaps for lack of choices, the defensive doctrine crept in.
AS you say it was more the result of Hitlers policies rather than the use of tanks in a defensive manner, however if i remember correctly, the main premise of Guderians definsive strategy was to not commit to many forces in the front line in fact the barest minimum, just enough to suck the enemy in and then "wham". I think Mainstein pulled off a couple of local area wins usinging this strategy but for the rest of the war local area superiority was increasingly hard to achieve with tanks being sacrificed piece meal in a defensive mode in a no retreat policy.
IMO digging tanks in reduces ones mobility( an essential ingrediant of Guderians concept and possibly a rather negative approch. ( this is from memory after reading many reputable books on the war in the "eastern front" decades ago
Anyway I think we are both arriving at the same ideas in the proper use of the tank.
While your summary is factually correct, that was just one instance in one specific scenario. And mobility does not represent the be all end all of tank usage. There are cases and scenarios where you simply need to hold the line and going hull down in such instances is the smart thing to do. Thats a just one example of why its foolish to base your assessment on some poorly captioned pictures, which if past cases are anything to go by, could be staged by the photographers to get the most 'dramatic' pose instead of being action shots from real exercises.
PLA tanks have always placed a high priority on mobility, even at the expense of protection. Why do you think that's the case if they only want to dig them in and use them as pillboxes?
OF COURSE I DONT. but i have read a few articles by military observers or military commanders.
Foremost amongst these is a certain Chinese Col. of the Canadian army who with an associate has spent decades analysing the structure and tactics of the PLA. There wouldnt be many released documents by the PLA they havent fully scrutanised over the years. His views and articles form the basis of my opinion on the PLA. ( Im sure theres a few members on this forun know who im referring to maybe by chance you have as well.)
You are assuming knowledge equals wisdom. That is not always the case, especially why the PLA is so selective about what it tells the outside world.
The fact is they were uncomplimentary photos if used as publicity to show the PLA at its best.
And as I said before, many of these photos are staged for tabloid effect by the cameraman.
A friend of mine , a serving officer in an armoured bat. also shook his head in a bemused manner when associating the photo with the caption describing battle manouvres or something. The tanks were lined up like ducks in a shooting gallery in an amusement park.
I think King has already addressed this.
My earlier comments about placing the tank akin to a defensive hull down position still stands. Relating back to the Battle of Kursk, the Russians found this worked as long as the attacking troops could be kept at a distance, but once the the opposing forces closed, the advantage was lost as the tank would be outflanked and attacked from the back and sides.
While the majority of the tanks were lost in open battle, the russians lost more tanks and a fair swag of them in a hull down position.
However in this instance the Chinese scenario is different, and i doubt whether the commanders are constrained by any Hitler type orders.
my view is that a tank is primarily densigned to be used as a offensive weapon, and by placing them in a defensive mode in the front lines could see them possibly taken out by advancing troops or a prepatory creeping ground barrage. Hence the inability to counter attack, I fact you pointed out with the German forces.
It seems your conclusions are based on many unsupported and sometimes peculiar assumptions.
Firstly, against a near-peer foe, creeping artillery barrages are not a great idea as that will give away the position of your artillery to the enemy and expose them to counter-battery fire.
Secondly, what makes you think digging a few tanks in to give them better protection equates to digging all your tanks in? Have it ever occurred to you that it may be advantageous to dig a small portion of your tanks in to give your infantry some armor support to defend a position to force your opponent into a flanking move to expose them to your main tank force?
Attack attack attack is not the answer to every battlefield problem, and whenever I see such one-dimensional sentiment, its hard not to have doubts whether one has actually understood and analyzed famous battles instead of merely memorized them.
